Did "Jesus literally change" w/declared righteous?!?

[1Way]

Here is a critical presentation against what I (tentatively) understand Bob to be saying on his show “Do callers change” 1-30-2003.

http://kgov.com/BEL/2003/20030130-BEL021.mp3

I posted this post there, but no one responded. So, here’s it’s own thread in an updated version, I hope someone will take up the challenge.

**repost**

Perhaps I totally misunderstand what Bob intended. ?

As many of you know, I am an avid supporter of Bob Enyart, especially his bible teaching ministry. I find it rather astonishing that I am hard pressed to disagree with what I clearly understand he teaches. It’s usually over matters that I realize that I don’t fully understand the other things that must be going on in his mind. And remember how the context really alter things, we make a point while addressing one context in response to one question, and in another different context, and answering a different concern, we may say nearly the point in a seemingly contradictory way. So grace has been more than sufficient for all unclear matters.

Here are quotes and highlights from Bob’s show, “Do callers change?” dated Jan 30, 03.

Highlights and quotes.

- God became flesh and dwelt among us.”

“How about other changes with God, sticking with God the Son”

- Humility
- “And, then He suffered we know,”
- “And let me ask you a bible question,”

“Did God the Son, become sin for us, did He become a curse for us?”

(Dan) . . . And so he did change.

That’s how. . . He took our punishment, He took our sin upon Himself.

Now let me ask you. Dan, was it only a figure of speech, or did he really take our sin upon Himself?

(Dan) . . . It wasn’t a figure. . .

Right, absolutely.
And then, He took our sin upon Him, He was separated from the father, but Paul writes, He was justified in the spirit and reunited.

(Commercial break)

“So that while Jesus Christ became sin and became a curse, for us, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in 1st Timothy 3:16, that, that He was Justified in the Spirit. And justified is a change word, because Christ, ,,, and hay Dan, is this orthodox Christian teaching, that Jesus, took on the sin, He took our sin upon Himself, And He was separated from the Father, but then He was justified in the spirit, and now He is, Jesus Christ the righteous. Is that all orthodox? Ya, I think so.”

End Highlights and quotes.

Summary

He goes on to argue against classic immutability, so his argument from the start to the end was consistent in demonstrating change in God. And I agree, God changes. But he was trying to demonstrate that God the Son (really and personally) changed (not figuratively changed) when He was justified in the spirit, and then was considered “Jesus the righteous”.

It seems as though Bob is saying that there was a time when Jesus Christ (Himself) was not justified in the spirit, or as He said, “and now” (after the change of being justified in the Spirit) He is Jesus Christ the righteous. As though previous to that point, Jesus Christ was not always righteous or just?

If the change he is indicating was literal and real in the person of Jesus, that should necessarily mean that prior to the point that He was justified, He was NOT justified in the spirit, He was NOT Jesus Christ the righteous. And that just doesn’t make good sense to me.

Here are the verses Bob offered.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"),

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Here’s my perspective.

Our sin really personally and not figuratively separates us from God so much that we need a Savior.
I offer Heb 4:15, that Jesus (in His own being) was sinless. Jesus “taking on the sins of the world”, that really did happen, and Jesus really was punished for our sins, but this is not saying that Jesus (in His person, in His being) literally changed from “sinlessness” into being “sin”. Is Bob saying that when Jesus was separated from the Father (forsaken), that the separation (not personal disapproval) was because Jesus and sin had become one, or that sin had literally transferred from us into Christ, literally making Him as we were, separated from God because of our own personal sin? Because of that, we need a savior, did that mean that Jesus needed a savior too? Of course not, so the transfer of sin to Jesus is not accounted upon Himself as it was upon us.

Wait, can we separate sin from the sinner?
No one can actually or literally separate the sin from the sinner, even if you are forgiven, your sins will always be yours and yours alone. Yet when forgiveness happens, God makes “a change in “account” “for us”. And I think it’s in this same substitutionary way that Jesus “took on the sins of the world” and “became sin for us”, it was “on account” of the world’s sin that he really did do what He did. He “substituted” Himself for us, and God the Father “accounts” Jesus’ righteous account to all saved people’s account even though their sin remains with them, God sees Jesus’ righteous account covering over us, so our “account” is judged as righteous.

What’s in the formula “for us”?
The debt was paid by Him on our “account”. I believe that is why the scriptures keep saying “for us”, like when it says that Jesus became sin “for us”, and He became a curse “for us”. It’s a statement of relational action “on our account”, He substituted Himself “for us”, “on account of us”.

Literally becoming sin? Literally becoming an inanimate object?
Examine the claim of a person really becoming an inanimate object. Can anyone really and personally become “sin”? Sin is not something a free will moral agent can “become”, sin is something one can “do” or “be guilty of”, or “be forgiven of”, etc. So if you want to be sin, the closest you can really do is be guilty of, or be forgiven of, you can’t change yourself into being sin “itself”. It seems obvious then that the concept, becoming sin, is not a very literal phrase.

So all the way around, Jesus “becoming sin for us”, and “becoming a curse for us”, holds the idea of a relationship which is highlighted in the words, “for us”. God really hung on a tree, and God really took on our problem of sin by paying the debt because of His love in order to provide a means of justification, since we could never remedy the problem of the world’s sin. But does any of that mean that God the Son personally changed when He became sin for us or was justified in the Spirit?

Now, to be fair, I don’t know how to “best” explain Jesus “being justified in the spirit”, but I think it’s fair to say that it does not imply that previously “Jesus” Himself was personally less than just or righteous. Right?!? And if that is so, then why say that Jesus Himself literally changed when He was declared righteous, since there was no change in Jesus’ righteousness.

I’d suspect it has to do with Him taking on the punishment for the sins of the world (= becoming sin for us) and becoming a curse for us. God could not accept man because God is just and righteous and man was exceedingly unjust and unrighteous. And God the Son did not deserve to take our punishment, which was the greatest punishment possible. But the Son could make the payment, as long as the father accepted it. So I suppose Jesus being declared justified, would be the same as saying that God accepted His Son’s sacrificial offering for sins such that justification came to the world. Before Jesus was justified in the spirit, the world had to wait in hopes of eternal life. We who are saved are part of God, and our righteousness comes from Him, our redemption comes from Him. So perhaps God was declaring those who are identified in Jesus, as being justified in Jesus, being justified in the spirit.

Here’s an analogy that I hope proves helpful.
The richest man in the world was so rich, that he could pay off all the entire worlds debt and still be wealthy. So, one day he was in an especially giving and gracious mood and just decided to pay off all the debts of the world! And so he paid the world’s debt. Now, when it was all done, one could say, he took on the debt of the world, he became debt for us, and he suffered the pain of paying our debt like a curse from the terrible problem of the worlds huge dept. But, after the dept was paid for and accepted as payment in full, then the rich man (on account of the world) was declared debt free, He owed nothing to anyone, yet really, that really means that now the world owes nothing to anyone.

The world’s debt was because of bad financial dealings. But the rich man’s so called “debt” was simply self-imposed because of charity. In fact, if He wanted to, at the last minuet, and without any liability, he could have changed his mind and given back all the accounts of debt back to the world and said, I will not pay your debt, it’s a curse and a burden that is your and I do not accept it for myself. It’s not wrong to not pay off someone else’s debt, but it is right to pay off someone else’s debt if they so chose to do so, and if the debtor accepts the substitutionary payment arrangement.

No one but the debtors could forgive the debt. They could either say, ok, no one has paid your debt, but we’ve just decided to forgive all your debts. Which would really be the same as them paying off your debt for you, they did pay for the products or services that remained in debt. Or, someone other than the debtors could come in and pay the dept, and in either case, the debtors could all forgive all debt regardless of who paid it. That is how I understand God taking on the sins of the world and becoming sin for us. It is real, but it concerns our account and the actual sin is not transferred, so Christ becoming sin FOR US, represented no real change in Jesus. The change was that previously, He had not paid for the sins of the world, and God had not previously accounted Jesus’ sacrifice as payment in full. And because this change more so represents relationships, rather than Jesus literally becoming sin, it’s seem like a faulty example to use to sight God changing.

When God humbled Himself, He really changed in Himself, but when Jesus became sin for us, He did not literally become sin, it’s a statement of profound relationship and love for us, a change Jesus provided for our account.

Perhaps I misunderstand what Bob intended. ?

**end repost**


Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.

[1Way]

Does everyone here just accept that Jesus changed becaues of being declared righteous? This change must mean that previously He was not declared righteous. Why, was it because He was somehow unrighteous? If not, and He was always righteous, and if that is the case, then what "so called change" happened IN JESUS because of being declared righteous?

Being declared righteous makes no difference in a person if that same person was always righteous. That would be like me going up to an eternally righteous God, and saying, God is righteous, what, as though prior to my declaration, He wasn't righteous?

So I don't get how it was that supposedly Jesus changed due to being declared righteous.

Hello out there, does anyone else understand my problem with what Bob is saying?

[1Way]

Come on, don't be shy, how could Jesus Himself have changed by being declared righteous? In what way?

[1Way]

:shocked:

NOTHING?!?

NOONE?!?

NOTHING?!?

:doh:

[1Way]

Has anyone carefully considered what Bob has publicly taught on this issue?

On one hand, I would grant that Bob does believe that Jesus never sinned, but on the other hand, I have no idea in what way thinks that Jesus Himself literally changed when He was declared righteous.

Perhaps I’ll just have to go to Bob himself, if no one else is able to assist me on this issue.

[Zakath]

(sounds of crickets chirping)

[1Way]

Oh no, not Zak – So then, in what way did Jesus change by being declared Jesus the righteous? Or are you just expounding nonsense from the peanut gallery?

Proverbs 24:9 The devising of foolishness sin, And the scoffer [is] an abomination to men.

As to [i]"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "yes, gravity is real! I will have faith!"- Dan Barker Truth does demand faith when it’s absolutely morally right and men constantly reject it to their own destruction.

Proverbs 24:11 Deliver [those who] are drawn toward death, And hold back [those] stumbling to the slaughter.

If we Christians (moral absolutists) were to take your advice, we should let every wicked and destructive thing happen without any resistance from us, because hay, who cares who believes in truth, who cares if the truth makes an eternal difference, belief in the truth is not important. But Zakath, we believers love God, and besides, we are awake, so we are not so dumb as to think that belief in the truth is not a moral issue. For all eternity, Christians will be able to console themselves that they heeded the word of God and averted their own destruction by trusting in and loving His truth, the truth that sets us free. And for all eternity, it will be unbelievers who imagined that somehow the truth is not a moral issue of eternal consequence, and that most obviously reject the truth (see the history of wicked man for more details).

2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


Thanks for the offering, but I was hoping for more of a productive and helpful response.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by 1Way
Oh no, not Zak – So then, in what way did Jesus change by being declared Jesus the righteous? Or are you just expounding nonsense from the peanut gallery? (sound of peanut shells cracking...) Who me? ;)

I actually agree with you about the illogic of the OV position.

There, is that better? :D

As to Truth does demand faith when it’s absolutely morally right and men constantly reject it to their own destruction.But I have yet to see anyone demonstrate something that is "abosolutely morally right". Knight's (and Enyart's) ridiculous hyperbole aside.

If we Christians (moral absolutists) were to take your advice, we should let every wicked and destructive thing happen without any resistance from us, because hay, who cares who believes in truth, who cares if the truth makes an eternal difference, belief in the truth is not important. Actually if you Christians took our advice you wouldn't remain Christians very long, because you'd begin to think and determine your own moral truths.

Remember that OT story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Metaphorically speaking, the knowledge of good and evil is what separates man from dependence on the gods. With it, man "has become like one of us", to quote YHWH (Gen. 3:22). When you begin to determine what is right and wrong for yourself, you take that first step toward determining your own destiny and taking on personal responsibility.

Being responsible for one's own actions and thoughts is a frightening prospect. Too disturbing for most people to accept, hence the need for religions and all the moral rules that accompany them. With religion people can say, "I'm good because my holy book tells me to be that way." Without it people must say, "I'm good because I believe it is the way to be."

[philosophizer]

1Way,

I think the message that might have been intended was not that Jesus was dubbed righteous and therefore wasn't righteous before. I think the intended message was probably that there was a point during the crusifixion when Jesus took the sin on Himself and changed to a temporary unrighteous state. He was righteous before then, and righteous after, but during that time He took on sin and became separated from the Father.

I think that's what they probably meant. I, however, do not agree. I don't think Jesus ever personally changed to an unjustified or unrighteous state. I liked your rich man analogy very much. I think you are on to something there.

Jesus took on the sin of the world. Does that mean that He had to change who He was? I don't think so. I could go change my clothes and put on a different shirt. Does that mean that I've changed who I am? No. I'm still me. I'm still the same person. Jesus clothed Himself in our sin and at that time, the Father could not look upon Him. He was still Jesus Christ, but he was covered and so was forsaken.

That's the real suffering that Jesus went through. The physical torments of crusifixion were undoubtedly painful. But that must be insignificant to that moment when God turned from him. That must have been pain more than anything we'll ever experience on this world.

But then after this "payment of our debts" the cloak of sin was removed and His righteousness was again exposed and justified in the Spirit.

So yeah, I agree with you. Jesus didn't necessarily have to "change" in order to accept sin and pay its wage.

[1Way]

Philosophizer – Big sigh of relief, I’m not the only one who noticed this teaching as at least dubious. As to (A) I think the message that might have been intended was not that Jesus was dubbed righteous and therefore wasn't righteous before. I think the intended message was probably that there was a point during the crusifixion when (B) Jesus took the sin on Himself and changed to a temporary unrighteous state. He was righteous before then, and righteous after, but during that time He took on sin and became separated from the Father.

(during that time He personally became unrighteous) A and B present a contradiction, but I think you realize that. If Jesus was never personally unrighteous, then He could never personally become temporarily unrighteous. But I agree, that does seem to be what he was teaching, and that is why I have a problem with it.

As to I think that's what they probably meant. I, however, do not agree. I don't think Jesus ever personally changed to an unjustified or unrighteous state. I liked your rich man analogy very much. I think you are on to something there. Thanks. The idea of replacement or substitution is a prolonged theme in the bible. And God seems to be fond of sort of mixing Himself into affairs in such a way that sometimes seems misleading. Like hardening of Pharaoh’s heart for example, really Pharaoh’s heart was hard because of his own doing, God just strengthened and highlighted the issue, which forced his heart to harden even harder, that is, unless he would repent, but he didn’t. God makes it sound like he totally regretted making man, when His actions show that to some extent, He still wanted to make it all work out. So when we hear God say something, we have to understand why He said it, and if there may be some thick contextual truths that He assumes is presumed along with these somewhat unique divine statements.

As to That's the real suffering that Jesus went through. The physical torments of crusifixion were undoubtedly painful. But that must be insignificant to that moment when God turned from him. That must have been pain more than anything we'll ever experience on this world. I agree that the “taking on sin” was manifest in Jesus through His punishment and execution, i.e. it was a statement specific to justice, not simply a literal fact.

But I’d like to examine a phrase you used. Not to be contentious but to expound an interesting point. Jesus is God, He is fully God, yet as God the son He emptied Himself of some of His powers and such. But did Jesus ever empty Himself from being God? I don’t think so. You see, at the crucifixion, because God the father forsook Jesus, some seem to think that Jesus lost His divinity and died purely as a man and not as God. I haven’t studied this view out, but at this point, I disagree with that view rather firmly. I think that Jesus the Son of God was just as much God as God the Father is God, even after empting and humbling Himself, Jesus remained fully God. After all, it’s good and Godly to humble yourself and to suffer change in order to reach and hopefully save people.

So I would not say that “God” left Him at His death, it was He Himself (God the Son) who would cause Himself to rise on the third day(!), so if “God” could not be part of what happened to Jesus at His death, then we have great problems with what Jesus taught about Himself and His death. I suggest that “God the father forsaking Jesus” was more of a relational deal concerning “justice and sacrifice and unique personal responsibility” where the father had the terrible pain of not wanting anyone to die over sin, least of all His own son, and yet, Jesus had the responsibility of dieing for sinful people so that people could live forever with “God”, yet they were both untied together in purpose and righteousness and love.

God remained with Him, or else Jesus was not always fully God, He was sometimes only a man and not God. But again to your point, I fully agree, the taking on of the sins of the world was realized in Jesus by His punishment and pain and execution, He did not become less than righteous, that part must be figurative and substitutional.

Thanks much for your response.

*************
This sort of thing (error) is the last sort of thing I'd expect from Bob and His ministry. On the other hand, lets say that he has taught a thousands of individual teachings, probably more like tens or hundreds of thousands, , , , so one wrong teaching here or an occasional error there is really a pretty exceptionally terrific record. I am proud of Bob and His teaching ministry, he is a real inspiration.
*************

[1Way]

Zakath – You’re a moron.

I agree that false religion is false, but your alternative is not an alternative, it’s the same problem of a man subjectively determining what he thinks is right and wrong.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by 1Way
Zakath – You’re a moron.That was profound.

Use an ad hominem insult to avoid dealing with the issues I raised.

What's the matter 1Way, have you lost your way?

I agree that false religion is false, but your alternative is not an alternative, it’s the same problem of a man subjectively determining what he thinks is right and wrong.You haven't given any reason why you think that is problematic, merely asserted that it is so.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Well you've done a good job demonstrating you're ignorant so far.

Are you capable of discussion that goes beyond "You're a moron." "You're wrong because I say so." ???

[1Way]

Zak - Sorry, now I stand corrected, Your a willfully ignorant moron.

Ya just can't win an argument with stupid. I'm happy letting our first posts tell the entire tale.

Your an advanced moron.

[billwald]

This line of thinking considers sins as financial debt and God the Bookkeeper in the Sky. Just as I could go to your local utility and pay your electric bill (they don't care who the money comes from) Jesus has "paid" our sin bill.

[1Way]

Billwald – So what is your point?

Right, substitution is what I have in mind, it's what I hear from most theologians also. The alternative that God the Son became less than righteous by taking on our sin is anti-Biblical on several fronts which I exposed, like no one can literally become sin, like sin can never really be serperated from the sinner, it can just be accounted/reckoned differently by forgiveness (like an accountant), and on and on.

And I don’t think that Jesus ever lost His divinity so that only His haman nature became sin/unrighteous at the cross. Do you? And even if you do think that, then that means that the sacrifice was not without blemish, it was not the perfect sacrifice, it was just a sin laden man, which in my understaning, could not settle God's need for justice for the sins of the entire world. You need a perfect and spotless offering in order to pay for the sins of the world and provision for eternity with God.

Jesus' sacrifical death was substitutionary and vicarious (in our place), but the supposed exchange of sin is necessarily figurative of this substitution. Jesus Christ was never personally less than holy and righteous, and that is the issue at stack with Bob's teaching the way he put it.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by 1Way
Zak - Sorry, now I stand corrected, Your a willfully ignorant moron.Thanks! Just tryin' to keep you honest, here NoWay. ;)

[Knight]

Originally posted by 1Way
:shocked:

NOTHING?!?

NOONE?!?

NOTHING?!?

:doh: It's a bit impossible to argue in the 4th person.

My guess is.... you and Bob would agree on this topic if you were to discuss it with him.

But then again maybe not! And that would be interesting as well. :D

[1Way]

Knight – You have the neatest website. Your avatars of altering characters crack me up. You keep things rolling here very well, and I’m proud of what theology online has become.

As to (1) It's a bit impossible to argue in the 4th person.

(2) My guess is.... you and Bob would agree on this topic if you were to discuss it with him.

But then again maybe not! And that would be interesting as well. :D (1) Well, I wouldn’t say impossible, perhaps difficult, especially if we are assuming that we must try to represent what Bob really meant. As to taking a 3rd or 4th person stance, I’ve never heard that one stated that way before. Sure, we can only speculate or guess what another person was thinking, but I am not seeking a discussion like that. We stand in the gap for God against all evil doers all the time as though it is our place to do so even though ever sinner and evil doing is primarily going against God, so I really don’t have a problem jumping into someone else’s debate/discussion. But in respect for Bob and his teachings, I have been careful to do two things.

[list=a] I left the door wide open for the possibility that I simply misunderstand what he is teaching, and have been asking EVERYONE if they heard/understood the same things I did. So far, my observations of what he is teaching seem accurate.

I’ve simply been arguing concepts about what we know he plainly said pretty much apart from guessing what Bob may personally believe.[/list=a]

(2) I agree. But part of my problem is that I have given this teaching some serious thought and I can’t understand how to get from what he said to where we would agree. It seems like there are some pieces of the puzzle missing, at least for me. Baring some strange misunderstanding(s), if I had to make a conclusion right now, it would be that Bob Enyart made an outright mistake by teaching that God personally changed when Jesus was declared righteous. Again, it would be quite unreasonable for anyone to think that Bob must get everything perfect and teach no mistakes at all. My best guess so far is that he was concentrating on just one aspect of a rather relationally involved issue and accidentally overstated the case without considering other angles attached to the same issues.

And lastly, it could just be me that is wrong and mistaken.

I’m glad to hear what others think, I encourage folks to do as Bob teaches us to do, to not just take his word as gospel truth, but to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. And I know that Bob does not want to attribute to God something that He does not take credit for doing. I wrote him an email, and I sent a copy of it to you, but Bob’s email was intercepted by Connie, and she seems adamant that Bob will not be bothered about such things that might cause Bob more work, Bob is VERY busy and his time is important to a lot of people, so I have my doubts that he will become informed about this matter. Thanks for your input.

[1Way]

I guess Connie has kept my email away from Bob, which included a note and reference to this forum page, and also what I thought were some really good suggestions for helping his ministry grow, but since I can not single handedly make them all happen, my supportive efforts are apparently disregarded out of hand. I guess when Bob Enyart says that he encourages folks to communicate to him disagreements with his teachings, it’s (somewhat) not true, because these issues may never reach his attention because as Connie plainly put it, and as his sons demonstrated as well, “if it would cause Bob any added work, then we can’t bother Bob with it”.

I saw this same sort of reaction before with what I believe was Bob mishandling the Strong’s occurrences of the Hebrew word “ra” (evil/ruin/destroy). Apparently he was off in reporting the occurrences, in terms from
a scant handful -- to over a hundred(!),
which “would” upset his point about what the word “ra” means. One or two of his sons (over say two phone calls) successfully stopped that unwelcome intrusion as well.

So I guess it’s
send in your disagreements, BEL wants to respond to them,
but don’t expect a response, just send them in anyway.

And also, support BEL with your time and money, even if its very difficult and scarce, but don’t bother BEL if you don’t have extra time and money to produce your suggestion completely autonomously.

Don’t get me wrong, if I was as busy AND as productive in ministry as BEL is, I would adopt similar procedures because you just can’t respond to everything everyone says or suggests or disagrees with, and expect to get anything accomplished. On the other hand, I think it is going too far to say that only those with plenty of money and spare time will get BEL to respond.

A growing ministry needs volunteer work and financial support. So, I guess I should simply be happy for the blessings I’ve received so far, which are many. Besides, my disagreements and support ideas may not be that important in the grand scheme of things.

Problem resolved by just getting over it.

[1Way]

But the truth about Jesus is important, especially if we are contradicting the truth. I really wish Bob E would respond to this issue. :shut:

[Knight]

Originally posted by 1Way
I guess Connie has kept my email away from Bob,Yes, in fact the command came down early in the morning and was accompanied by the usual flashing red lights and that ear piercing siren. The directive was clear....Do not allow Bob to view the e-mail in question.

After all, the mere sight of that e-mail could send a ripple effect of destruction through the entire organization.

Therefore only one option was available....
Carefully remove the e-mail with special precision tongs and immediately place it in a "escape proof" container that was procured from NASA only months before with the intention of using it on some suspicious letters that had surfaced from the Washington DC area.

After the e-mail was safely in the "escape proof" container it was buried in a undisclosed location in eastern Colorado.


You continue....So I guess it's
send in your disagreements, BEL wants to respond to them,
but don't expect a response, just send them in anyway. A devastatingly unfair comment. I have personally seen Bob sit for hours after his show discussing issues and witnessing to the lost even when he knows he is needed elsewhere like raising his 7 children, running his business and various websites, writing his material for seminars and manuscripts and being the pastor of a fantastic Bible church.

I myself have to ignore a certain percentage of the questions and inquires that flood TheologyOnLine daily. Not because I want to ignore these things but simply due to logistics. I just can't answer them all! There isn't time! Is that unfair? I don't know! But we do the best we can with the amount of time and resources we have which isn't much. And my situation pales in comparison to Bob's which dwarfs my tight schedule.

[Lion]

1 Way-First let me explain about the “Escape Proof Container” procured from NASA (code named:Connie!). Knight doesn’t know the details of this due to his being at a hockey tournament with his many children at the time we had the Elder’s meeting that created Connie!.

At our last Elder’s meeting we discussed ways that we could free up some time so that Bob could finish the sequel to “The Plot”. One of our solutions was to create Connie! A highly efficient filtering secretarial device that would not allow Bob to talk for hours on end to his friends on the phone (like he usually does) or answer his e-mail with out it first going through the filtering device (Connie!). Bob wasn’t too happy about this invention, but, we, the elders of Denver Bible Church, felt it vital, if the manuscript were ever to be finished (he’s only on chapter three for crying out loud!). I assure you this decision has nothing to do with money…. wait, let me take that back. It does have something to do with money, because BEL is way short of funds and in danger of closing completely. Not our church, but BEL. The elders of the church don’t want that to happen, especially since many of the elders themselves came to the LORD through BEL. The publication of “The Script” will hopefully give a much-needed boost of income to the ministry. Besides, Bob is horrible about ever asking for money. So, your shot about Bob and the money issue is really inaccurate concerning Bob. It is not so inaccurate concerning me and the other elders, (except Knight who wasn’t there), because we see the need for continued income in order to keep BEL on the air.

Thus, Connie! is our invention to keep Bob on task. Sometimes I think we created her a little too good, I couldn’t even get through her this morning. She shut me down cold!

As to the real nature of your original question I would like to take a stab at it (I tried to ask Bob what he thought about it, but Connie! was there doing her job most effectively. RATS!

I believe that Christ absolutely did change when He became sin for us. So let’s look at two things first and go on from there.

My first question is: Did God the Son change when He took on flesh?

I would say yes, he did. He, God the Son, became a New Creation. Man and God, for the first time ever. Never before, in eternity past, had God become flesh. So God the Son did change.

Do you agree with this?

The second thing is sin itself. You made the statement that sin is not a thing, but rather a concept. I would go a step further and state that sin is an action. And those actions have true consequences. When we sin, we commit an action against God and others. There is a price to be paid for those actions (in other words consequences). In your analogy about the rich man that paid off the debts of the world, there really was no consequence. It was as if he paid the debt to himself and said, okay all’s forgiven, no problem. And he was still endlessly rich. So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.

Do you agree with this?

[billwald]

"Right, substitution is what I have in mind, it's what I hear from most theologians also."

Could be correct but at least to me it makes God appear infantile. The substitution theory boils down to the concept that pain has a positive qualitative and quantitative value that offsets the negative qualitative and quantitative value of sin.

An adult god would accept sincere confession and repentance (and restitution, where possible) as an acceptable atonement for sin.

"The alternative that God the Son became less than righteous by taking on our sin is anti-Biblical on several fronts which I exposed, like no one can literally become sin, like sin can never really be serperated from the sinner, it can just be accounted/reckoned differently by forgiveness (like an accountant), and on and on."

Hadn't heard it put this way but doesn't sound right.

Please explain "He became sin for us."

I think the primary purpose of the incarnation was to resolve a communication problem between God and humans.

[1Way]

Knight – Connie said she would look into it instead of Bob because he was too busy to be bothered with more work. As to my devastatingly unfair comment, , , unfair? Is it fair to observe the state of things? It’s an observation that I think is true, just as I’m sure yours is too. Bob can not respond to most mailings, because he is too busy. That is not an issue of fairness, it’s an issue of reality.

His mother just wanted to know one thing, will Bob have more work or not after reading the email, this was concerning the supportive suggestions and the objection slash questioning of his teaching. After some clarifying what she meant, I said yes, it would likely cause him more work, so she said she would handle the email herself, but she made it clear that I should handle it myself, or, if I had any questions for approval, then of course I should ask, otherwise I should shoulder all the time and effort preparing and producing my suggestion. Nothing “unfair” about that, it’s about being too busy to respond. I am not faulting anyone for not being fair, but I suppose I am not happy with the conflicting message, send us your thoughts and disagreements even though it most likely will not be responded to.

I should make a comment because disappointment is not the only response I have to this issue. I can understand that the best intentions sometimes are simply not realized, especially when one man is trying to serve thousands. I look at everyone else (including you folks near Bob) and would like to help them too, help each other build each other up. So, I do what I can, and hope for the best.

Take it light, if you thought I was wrong about a very important issue, such as me teaching an false message about who Jesus is, I’d hope that I’d be humble enough to objectively receive the message, and I’d hope you’d be caring enough to give it to me.

I imagine that Bob feels the same way. And so here we are.

[1Way]

Lion – As to project Connie, (LOL) 10-4, she is working in optimal efficiency. And she was very polite about it too, so my concerns, however valid or valuable or redemptive or crummy, are left by the wayside. It’s a big world, and BEL has reached (and is reaching) many, and that is more important that my email being read. BEL is an amazing ministry.

As to So, your shot about Bob and the money issue is really inaccurate concerning Bob. It is not so inaccurate concerning me and the other elders, (except Knight who wasn’t there), because we see the need for continued income in order to keep BEL on the air. Wow, them are strong words, strongly humble, and I imagine right on the money. I have to go back and see what you mean about a shot at Bob on the money issue. Thanks for helping me understand the Connie thing.

You must mean this. And also, support BEL with your time and money, even if its very difficult and scarce, but don’t bother BEL if you don’t have extra time and money to produce your suggestion completely autonomously. The fact is that if you are a BEL supporter, but don’t have the extra time and cash to produce the suggestion autonomously, it will not happen, the lack of time because of being too busy even precludes a response, so why even read the email if you already know it would negatively impact time and effort. That message was given to me by Connie. All she wanted to know was, will it cause Bob more work, at first I said, I don’t know because I considered such things as delegation and teamwork and at least hearing out the idea in the mean time until more time might be available for more careful consideration, but none of that was in the picture, she helped me understand by saying, can you or will you produce your suggestion yourself? I said no I can’t since my work leaves me with no spare time and I’m financially deep in the red. I was offering (free) promotional concepts that given the right people and effort (and finances), could make a very positive impact towards financial support for BEL. So, Connie found out that I was not going to handle it myself, and said that Bob can’t be bothered with more work. It was just that simple, and I understood just that quick too, because I know that Bob is an extremely busy man, and has been way more productive in a redemptive sense than probably anyone I’ve ever met.

So I have that, and I have Bob saying, I want to hear from the audience because I am not infallible, Bob wants astute critical feedback. I did not do that, BEL did. Nothings perfect, I have patience, and I wait and hope for the best.

Even if I had a simple and hopefully effective idea that might help build up BEL’s financial support, it still needs hours of work for preparation as well as financial support to get it started, so it will have to wait since I can not do it.

I meant no disrespect by it. If it is troublesome that people without extra money and time are not given more attention, then such is life. I guess both BEL and BEL supporters will just have to get used to it.

So what seems unchallenged and are pretty clear?

Call or write in if you disagree with Bob, but don’t expect a response because he doesn’t have the time. Perhaps Bob needs to make a policy announcement that although He encourages and appreciates our responses, even our disagreements with his bible teaching, he is simply too busy to read them and respond to them, in fact, it might be overlooked.

I know that Bob also lets his audience know that he has an overwhelming job trying to respond to so many emails and letters and calls and such, I’ve heard that message for some 5 plus years or so. So I guess I am frustrated, but also overjoyed from the many blessings derived from BEL.

I still wish BEL would give my concept/suggestion for strengthening BEL’s financial support a decent look over.

As to My first question is: Did God the Son change when He took on flesh?

I would say yes, he did. He, God the Son, became a New Creation. Man and God, for the first time ever. Never before, in eternity past, had God become flesh. So God the Son did change.

(1)Do you agree with this?

(2a)The second thing is sin itself. You made the statement that sin is not a thing, but rather a concept. I would go a step further and state that sin is an action. (2b)And those actions have true consequences. When we sin, we commit an action against God and others. There is a price to be paid for those actions (in other words consequences). (2c)In your analogy about the rich man that paid off the debts of the world, there really was no consequence. 1 - Sure. The change happened in the person, the person was different before and after the change. It was a real personal change.

2a - Well, my point was that it was not an animate object, sin usually happens in action but not always, sometimes it happens purely in the realm of the mind, - - - but sin is not a material thing, it is a moral thing, and is understood conceptually. In essences sin is going against God, and it starts in the heart or will of a person even before it is ever carried out with action.

2b - Actions, or even non-actions like just sinful thoughts and intents, have consequences. That is “a” crux in this discussion. Sin is one thing, and the consequences of sin is another thing.

2c - You mean if the dept wasn’t paid? I was only focusing on the aspect of the issue that is in contention, as I’m sure we all agree what happens when are sins are not forgiven and our debt is not paid.

I am speaking of the way God attributes righteousness to our behalf, and how I imagine that God declared Jesus as righteous as if that issue was somehow in contention. The Bible is clear that we are not righteous other than Gods accounting Christ’s righteousness on our behalf. Accounting, substitution, it’s all real, but it’s real substitution into our personal account, we ourselves are not changed into perfect righteousness, our sin remains with each and every person, but if we are saved, our sin is simply not condemned by God, hence the sin remains but our account says it is gone, no real change in the person concerning sinlessness, only a change in account.

Yes we are a new creation since Christ lives in us and we are sealed by the HS and so on, but even then we still often sin, and our sin is not translated to someone else, it’s ours because that is the nature of morality, you can not really separate the morality from the moral agent, you can forgive or condemn, but the moral intentions and deeds are connected to it’s agent. Separate the sin from the sinner is a false teaching, and it can’t be done.

As to It was as if he paid the debt to himself and said, okay all’s forgiven, no problem. And he was still endlessly rich. So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.

Do you agree with this? Oh, actually, I imagined the dept was paid to someone else, but in the case of Jesus paying the debt to God, I guess it matches. And God is till endlessly rich and righteous even though He paid the ransom and bought every soul an eternal ticket to heaven, if only they would accept.

The ram in the thicket was God’s offering to substitute for the boy’s life and is a foreshadow of what happened at the cross. Jacob stole the birthright and blessing from his brother, another example of substitution which foreshadows what Christ did at his work of redemption by taking on the birthright given to Adam. Jesus died that we might live, direct substitution.

BTW, Lion, you started out by claiming that Jesus Himself really changed when He became sin for us. Remember, Bob said that Jesus changed in Himself, it was a real change, and then He was called, Jesus the righteous. The only way that could possibly be a change would be in Jesus’ righteousness. And since this claim proclaims Jesus as righteous, then prior to this change, He must have been other than Jesus the righteous, implying, Jesus not the righteous, or Jesus less than righteous, or Jesus not righteous. I suggest that if these are not correct, then it was figurative of Jesus’ work of redemption.

If not, then Jesus living a sinless life is not accurate since Jesus really and truly had sin in His life at the cross. Also, the perfect sacrifice, the lamb without blemish (imperfection) did not happen, Christ’s sacrifice was not only blemished with sin, it was the most filthy and disgusting offering ever given to God. God takes not pleasure in sin and wickedness, it makes Him ravenous with contempt and wrath to consider the worlds wickedness, now imagine all the world’s sin was presented to God all at once in Jesus when He died at the cross. Jesus would be filled beyond measure full of murder and strife and perverse heinous wickedness, like rape and incest and malicious torture and theft and lies and on and on. That is what happened at the cross?

I don’t think so. I think Jesus was righteous and loving and good and right and Holy every step of the way.

God says almost as though He is bragging that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. But God let Pharaoh’s heart do exactly as it wanted to do, He did not violate Pharaoh’s will. Sometimes God states things in nearly contrary ways, and expects the unashamed worker to understand the truth, even if it takes more effort than simply reading a few words that otherwise seem to make it seem like Jesus ever changed in His righteousness.

So come on with the stuff, exactly what sort of change happened IN Jesus when He became our sin?

[1Way]

Billwald – As to Could be correct but at least to me it makes God appear infantile. The substitution theory boils down to the concept that pain has a positive qualitative and quantitative value that offsets the negative qualitative and quantitative value of sin. Infantile? Substitution is a bible wide theme. Pain? Pain? . . . Pain. Pain?

Substitution is not about pain. Look at what the Bible teaches on the topic. That man can not save himself, he needs God’s rescue and God seems right in thinking that only a perfect (sinless) sacrifice could possibly redeem the world for all eternity. Not pain, but biblical righteousness and forgiveness. Forgiveness never says, the offender is not guilty of offending, it’s, the offender is guilty BUT he repented AND I forgive the offense they did against me.

And as far as forgiveness in salvation goes, God imputes Christ’s righteousness into our account. Imputation is not something that is separates the sin from the sinner, it’s outright substitution, God esteems/declares our account as righteous as though our righteousness is really Christ’s perfection! Yet even though Christ lives in us, “our” own righteousness is not perfect, it’s is merely accounted that way by God despite all our sin and unrighteousness. That’s love and forgiveness and biblical accounting and substitution, and lastly, the fact that you can never separate the sin from the sinner, or the good from the righteous.

Bob Enyart was the one who is saying that Jesus changed when He became sin for us, and when He later was declared righteous. Unless someone finally comes forward and explains what other change in God we are talking about, this teaching is saying that God was at least temporarily less than righteous because of sin. I am saying that is not possible, the sacrifice at the cross was without blemish, the price tag for the gift of salvation to the world was not paid by a person filled sin, the infinite price was paid by a perfect person without sin.

(As to) “He became sin for us”, must not mean what Bob is teaching, which would be focusing only on the first part and ignoring the second half, it must be some statement of substitution. And look, consider the phrase, it is substitution. God did something:
- for us,
- instead of us,
- on our behalf.
Substitution, or “on our behalf”, or “on our account”, is the idea plainly presented, and in other parts of scripture, being “accounted for righteousness” is God’s word concerning our salvation and forgiveness.

Surely you can at least acknowledge these precepts as Biblical.(?)

[1Way]

Thanks all for your input, see you later, another week of work on the road calls again.

[Knight]

Originally posted by 1Way
As to my devastatingly unfair comment, , , unfair? Is it fair to observe the state of things?If the observation insinuates something that is untrue then yes the observation is unfair.

You stated...So I guess it's
send in your disagreements, BEL wants to respond to them,
but don't expect a response, just send them in anyway. This insinuates in no uncertain terms that BEL does not respond to disagreements. Bob DOES indeed respond to disagreements, most notably everyday on his radio broadcast. The fact that he didn't respond to YOUR disagreement does not mean he doesn't respond to ANY disagreements.

There are many things I would like to ask Walter Brown or Ken Ham or any number of authors but I know full well that it is nearly impossible for these folks to respond to even a fraction of what is asked of them. Therefore for me to expect that my questions be responded to might be a tad unfair to that individual. I certainly wouldn't publicly criticize him for not moving my issue to the top of his priority list.

To summarize:
You insinuated in no uncertain terms that since your objection or idea was not responded to... therefore no objections or ideas are responded to. That is not only untrue but unfair.

Unless of course you have some way to demonstrate that NO objections or ideas are responded to. Then I suppose your observation would be a fair observation.

[1Way]

Knight – As to This insinuates in no uncertain terms that BEL does not respond to disagreements. This insinuates in no uncertain terms that BEL does not respond to disagreements. I’d agree, especially without reading the rest of my post. Given Connie, your letter or call or email will not reach Bob if it would require him more work. So evidently the only communication that will get to Bob are the ones that do not require for Bob to do more work. And between responses of disagreement and one's of agreement, naturally, the one's of disagreement would take more work.

Actually, the new rule as stated so far is a bit of an overstatement on the surface, because even reading takes a bit of time, but, it seems that Bob is surrounded by a force field as also described by Lion, which naturally precludes him from responding to anything that would require him to do more work. It’s just an observation that Lion says is right on.

Bob is very giving of himself, that is obvious, but this is what is going on, that is, if what Lion and Connie says is anywhere near accurate.

Therefore for me to expect that my questions be responded to might be a tad unfair to that individual. I certainly wouldn't publicly criticize him for not moving my issue to the top of his priority list. Unless BEL is picking on me specifically, the new “no reaching Bob” rule is for everyone (who’s response would require more work from him), not just me. And I know you don’t mean to suggest that.

At least I get to voice my "work requiring" objection to what Bob taught here! (I hope my topic actually gets dealt with.)

[Lion]

1Way-You said:1 - Sure. The change happened in the person, the person was different before and after the change. It was a real personal change. Great, we agree here, both realizing that God does change.

Then you answered: 2a - Well, my point was that it was not an animate object, sin usually happens in action but not always, sometimes it happens purely in the realm of the mind, - - - but sin is not a material thing, it is a moral thing, and is understood conceptually. In essences sin is going against God, and it starts in the heart or will of a person even before it is ever carried out with action.

Hmmmm… not exactly right. Best to check the P&P manual for the correct description of what sin is:James 1: 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Sin always requires action, even if that action is only agreeing to play with your thoughts. It is not a sin when a scantily clad woman walks by and you see her (at least not a sin on your part). Nor is it a sin if after seeing her a filthy thought flashes into your head (the flesh and Satan are powerful and sneaky). However, once you decide to continue down that path, playing with those thoughts, (an action in itself), then you are sinning.

Then you said: 2b - Actions, or even non-actions like just sinful thoughts and intents, have consequences. That is “a” crux in this discussion. Sin is one thing, and the consequences of sin is another thing.Ahhhh, now we are getting there. Yes, sin, and the consequence of sin is indeed at the heart of this discussion.

I then had asked: The second thing is sin itself. You made the statement that sin is not a thing, but rather a concept. I would go a step further and state that sin is an action. And those actions have true consequences. When we sin, we commit an action against God and others. There is a price to be paid for those actions (in other words consequences). In your analogy about the rich man that paid off the debts of the world, there really was no consequence. It was as if he paid the debt to himself and said, okay all’s forgiven, no problem. And he was still endlessly rich. So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.

You said: Oh, actually, I imagined the dept was paid to someone else, but in the case of Jesus paying the debt to God, I guess it matches. And God is till endlessly rich and righteous even though He paid the ransom and bought every soul an eternal ticket to heaven, if only they would accept.
You missunderstood what I was saying here. The point I was making was that in your analogy the rich man really lost nothing by paying all the worlds debt off because he was still fabulously rich, and all he gave up was a little cash.

That is a bad analogy. Because God didn’t just pretend to pay our debt. Nor did He have a wealth of Son’s to spend, so that the loss of one of them was no big deal.

Your analogy could possibly have been correct if sin was against God alone, however it isn’t. We also sin against one another, and if God just said “Hey, no big deal, I’ll just pay their debt, since I own everything anyway”, and winked and all sins were forgiven, then justice would not be served. If a man kills my child, I know, (because it is written in my heart), that that man must pay with his life, and even then he hasn’t given enough back to me to make up for what he stole from me. The truth is that he can never pay it back because my daughter has eternal worth to me. She is priceless. That is why the death of a man alone, even a sinless man, could never be enough to cover the world’s debt.

So, when I said: So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no. And in your analogy I still say no, but in God’s case I would say yes, because a true price was paid. A price of eternal value that truly hurt God the Father and God the Son and changed them forever. And that price, the price of God Himself willing to die, is more than payment for all sins, both to God and to mankind.

Now let’s get at the last part of the puzzle so that we can get to work on piecing it together.

What is death?

[1Way]

Lion – I find most of your post in substantial agreement with what I believe and what I have said, so I find it strange your disagreeing slash corrective approach towards me.

I gave an accurate however general definition of what sin is, and you beg to differ by giving me James 1:14, saying that it defines sin, however, it does not define sin, but it does go on about the process of the conception of sin, and what sin produces, none of which is a definition of sin.

I agree with James 1:14, but it does nothing to correct my understanding of sin. Then you go on to explain what you originally meant by sin being an “action”, you meant it as including a moral deed, which includes thoughts and intentions, which are “acts” of the will. So we agree, yet for some reason, you opposed and correction me, even though we agree.

I said that sin is not just an action, it can also happen in the mind (without physical action), so you proceed to correct me by agreeing with me. I appreciate your explaining what you really meant, however, with your form of opposing correction, who needs mutual agreement. :think:

I still haven’t heard you deal with my point the way I gave it. Sin is not a material object that can be separated from the sinner. I can not have your morality, yours is your and mine is mine, you can’t separate the sin from the sinner, or the righteousness from the righteous. That is demonstrated in that hell will be filled with evil people, not just evil deeds.

That was my point about sin not being something that we can exchange from person to person like an animate object. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as my analogy goes, you are criticizing it like it’s a formal letter of doctrine. I am not assuming anything other than it’s application to the God of the Bible and His teaching about Christ’s work of redemption, in relation to personal substitution. The issue is, Jesus becoming sin for us, was that an “accounting” and “substitutionary”, or was that a real change in Christ’s righteousness, like Jesus was truly filled with sin, hence, He was temporarily not sinless.

In hopes of finally getting to the issue (grin), you said. Now let’s get at the last part of the puzzle so that we can get to work on piecing it together.

What is death? Does the perspective behind a question (context, context, context) matter?

At the morgue and cemetery, death means job security. (grin) In general, it’s lifelessness and is what happens after one’s life ends. In the bible, it is a common reference to a guilty person who is not right with God, it’s eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. But I think that’s called the second death.

Stalling for time?

Just “ :joker: ing ”

(Remember) It’s not, did Jesus change in some other way, it’s, did Jesus change in His righteousness when He became sin “for us”.

[Lion]

1-Way-Not to banter points but what you originally said about sin was this: 2a - Well, my point was that it was not an animate object, sin usually happens in action but not always, sometimes it happens purely in the realm of the mind, - - - but sin is not a material thing, it is a moral thing, and is understood conceptually. In essences sin is going against God, and it starts in the heart or will of a person even before it is ever carried out with action.And what I was trying to show you with the James passage is that in order for there to be sin, it does require action. The action may just be deciding to play with a sinful idea in the mind, or to go against God in the mind, but either way it requires action on the part of the subject. My objection to your statement was that sin could happen without action. It can’t.

As to death: I would like to use the definition you used in relation to God. Death is the separation from God. Not non-existence, but separation. We, of course, both agree on this.

Now in your first post you gave a brief description of what Bob said about Christ being “justified in the spirit” and this is your major sticking point. Did Jesus literally change? And I would say “yes” He literally changed. Did He become an inanimate object, “sin itself”? No.

(By the way I think you gave a brilliant description of the transference of sin and accountability. I’ve saved it in a file to use in latter arguments.)

But for the first time in history God the Son had all the sins of man laid upon Him and He literally died. By that I mean He, God the Son, was literally separated from God the Father. And in that instant He was unrighteous. Not because of what He did, but because He was clothed in our sin (much as you explained in your earlier post). Then He was made righteous by the Spirit and was reunited with God the Father, having paid our debt in full. But the key point here is that this wasn’t just a pretend payment (as in your rich man analogy). God, (both Son and Father and Holy Spirit) did pay the price. He really did suffer. He really did die.

As I stated at the beginning of this discussion, the only difference I see between our two positions is that you don’t consider this an actual change. I do, and so I believe, does Bob. God the Son had never known what it was to experience the weight of sin. Then He did. And that changed Him forever. Never before had God the Son been separated from the Father. Then He was. And that changed Him forever. Now He is able to be a true and righteous mediator and judge before us.

Does this help to clear up your problem with what you thought Bob was saying?

[1Way]

Lion - I have a full reply, but I am praying about it for a while. In the mean time, two points protrude rather unavoidably. Please help me with my lack of understanding.

So sin can “actually” be separated from the sinner.
I can’t fathom how, other than symbolically.

And a perfectly sinless personal sacrifice can actually change and become completely sinful at the very moment of the sacrifice, and later be truthfully considered perfectly sinless.
I can’t imagine this either.

:help:

:confused:

[Lion]

1Way- So sin can “actually” be separated from the sinner.
I can’t fathom how, other than symbolically.I don’t know how you got that out of what I said. But that’s not what I said.

And a perfectly sinless personal sacrifice can actually change and become completely sinful at the very moment of the sacrifice, and later be truthfully considered perfectly sinless.I don’t know how you got that out of what I said either. But that’s not what I said, either.

I guess I’ll wait for your full reply before I say more.

[1Way]

(NOTE: Ok, I believe that this re-edited version is now ready for the record, although I may make a few more minor changes. Please be sure to quote this more correct version. Thanks!)

Lion – I did not say that you said that. I don’t know how you got that out of what I said. But that’s not what I said, nor intended. :)

However I agree, our frame of reference and point of view (understandings) are not aligned. So lets continue towards better clarity.

That is what I am dealing with since hearing Bob and now you say that Christ actually changed in His righteousness when He took on the sins of the world and when He was later declared righteous.

For the record, I don’t believe that I have ever heard the teaching that Christ “actually” (and not symbolically by way of substitution) became unrighteous. I hope for everyone’s sake that “we” can straighten out this teaching. Bob nearly said it, and you did said it. I think it is wrong and is probably blasphemous to actually attribute unrighteousness in God.

In the first point, since it is not just symbolic, it’s actual, then you are teaching separating the sin from the sinner. If you are not, then I have no idea why you have not given in to my point that you can not separate sin from the sinner a long time ago, hence it is not an actual change, it’s a symbolic change because there was no actual change in Christ, but there was a symbolic change involving the world and God.

The second point, you actually went slightly farther than what Bob did in explaining what sort of change actually happened in Jesus. You said that the change was in His actual righteousness because of the sin He took on Himself, namely, that He became unrighteous. Christ didn’t take just some of the sin, He took it all and thus become the most sin-filled – or - sinful person ever. And since the sin actually transferred from the world to Him, the biggest sinner ever was supposedly saving a perfectly sinless world, a complete reversal of what the Bible teaches. But the single point I was making in that “second point” was against the believe that the perfectly sinless sacrifice, Jesus, became (completely) sinful, and then was declared righteous again, even though the bible does not teach against Christ’s sinless perfection. Here’s another view of that.

The point being that Christ was and is “actually” sinless,

then if he ever “actually” changed in His righteousness, then He would not “actually” be sinless.

So, one of the two righteousness teachings has to be “symbolic” and not actual, specifically, the real but symbolic change must not be in Christ’s righteousness, but in something else. Otherwise you are left with a direct contradiction, Jesus the Son of God as being both sinless and sinful.

Doesn’t the bible teach that our savior was the perfect righteous sinless sacrifice? If so, then it seems to me that you are denying that by saying that Jesus “actually” was full of sin instead, and I don’t understand why anyone would say that. Especially since all you have to do is recognize what is symbolically represented (the sins of the world) and what is actually not changed (Christ’s righteousness).


2Co 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


I hope you read my first post (well). I pointed out that there are some words that are included in this supposed change in Christ that apparently bare heavily on the meaning intended by this change we are talking about. The words are, “for us”.

I suggested that those words are precisely what we find throughout scripture concerning forgiveness and sacrificial love and substitution. I think it could rightly be restated as follows.

He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf,

When you do something on someone else’s behalf, “when you do it yourself” “for someone else”, that is substitution, it’s you, instead of them, acting on their behalf. So that is what is happening in that teaching, the phrase’s contextual use is only clear that it is a case of symbolism, where one is substituting for another. So really, it’s a change in relationship between two parties, not one person actually changing.

This relational expression, really happened, Christ really stood in our place and substituted Himself for us, for our behalf, and atoned for OUR actual sins that never left us. I’m sure I could show quite a front declaring that God forgave OUR sins, and that even after Christ took on our sins upon Himself, we still have OUR actual sins forgiven.

I guess by your view, our sins actually started with us, then they were actually separated from us and given to Jesus, and then after they were dealt with at the cross, sometime God must have given them back to us so that He can save us from OUR sins. This jockeying back and forth with sins is fanciful nonsense. What is real is the substitutionary sacrifice, which was perfectly sinless for the sake of redeeming the world on behalf of all OUR actual sins.

In the same symbolic way, Jesus was declared righteous on our behalf, it wasn’t because of Christ’s unrighteousness that He was declared righteous, because He was always righteous and never sinned. Rather, God (trinity) considered that Jesus actually accomplished justification for sins by His substitutionary sacrifice, so for the sake of all those sins, God declared Christ righteous on our behalf, it was our sins that remain with us that was in need of forgiveness, not Christ’s sin and unrightrousness, because He had none to be forgiven, so we consider what Christ did as symbolically dealing with our sins, then yes, Christ was justified on account of our sins which was symbolically but really accounted onto Him.

Otherwise, if you (as I suggest) wrongly attribute the real change in Jesus as Him actually but not symbolically becoming sin “for us”, and as you plainly said, actually becoming unrighteous, then you have two new and very problematic teachings,

1 - an actually sin-filled sacrifice instead of a sin-less one,

2 - and you have the new teaching of being able to actually, not symbolically, separate the sin from the sinner.

Both of which are clearly against what the bible teaches.

I am not in the least persuaded that the concept of Christ’s sinlessness needs to be altered in order to let Him become sinful, even for just an instant. And I am rather surprised that you actually believe that Christ actually became unrighteous, even if just of a moment. It doesn’t matter how long you are “actually” involved with sin, if you have sin, you have sin, you are not sinless, you are “actually” unrighteous and need to get right with God. That alone is enough to know that Christ did not actually become unrighteous, so I suggest that you have to dig a little deeper in order to understand what God intended by saying that He became sin for us, and Christ was declared righteous (on behalf of OUR sin).

It was symbolic and substitutionary for our account with God, it was not an actual change in Christ. But I am more than willing to hear how I should stand corrected. :help: !

[Lion]

1Way-I don’t mean to be rude, but sometimes you can be so thick headed you refuse to see the writing on the page in front of you. You hear or read something and one little word catches your attention because it isn’t stated the way you think it should be stated and then someone can try a hundred times to explain what is really meant, but you refuse to understand what is being said, sticking instead to your own misconstrued idea.

In the first place, I did read what you said in your earlier post and even told you that I thought it was brilliant. Now in your first post you gave a brief description of what Bob said about Christ being “justified in the spirit” and this is your major sticking point. Did Jesus literally change? And I would say “yes” He literally changed. Did He become an inanimate object, “sin itself”? No.

(By the way I think you gave a brilliant description of the transference of sin and accountability. I’ve saved it in a file to use in latter arguments.)

In the second place, you must not have read my response to that post at all, or you read it while your mind was already made up as to what I was going to say, because you have completely misconstrued what I said. In fact you say that I said the exact opposite of what I said.

You say I said: In the first point, since it is not just symbolic, it’s actual, then you are teaching separating the sin from the sinner.

When what I really said was:But for the first time in history God the Son had all the sins of man laid upon Him and He literally died. By that I mean He, God the Son, was literally separated from God the Father. And in that instant He was unrighteous. Not because of what He did, but because He was clothed in our sin (much as you explained in your earlier post).

First God the Son was clothed in sinless flesh (He tented among us). Then He took the sins of the world onto that flesh (clothing Christ with sin), stealing, (an action) man’s inheritance of death (separation from God the Father, which is the price for sin). Then the Spirit (God the Son, who was now Christ) was able to overcome death (separation from God), having paid the price, once for all time. He “became sin” in that He took our sins upon Himself and defeated death, having paid the price in full. Just as when Jacob stole Esau’s birthright by clothing himself in apparel that simulated Esau’s appearance. Jacob didn’t actually become Esau, nor did he pretend he was Esau for the rest of his life. He did it once, stole the inheritance, and it was his for evermore. Christ stole our inheritance, paid the price, once, then defeated the power of that price by the power of the spirit, forevermore.Rom. 8:2-4 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So before we go on I need to l know this from you.

Prior to Christ dieing on the cross, did God have experiential knowledge of the price of sin, death? In other words, had He Himself, experienced it?

And once He did experience it, is that not a change?

Or, do you instead contend that Christ never actually paid our price, but instead only did it symbolically, like your rich man analogy. Do you state that Christ really never did die for our sins? Is that what you are saying?

[1Way]

Lion – 1of2 - You have degraded this discussion into something shameful. Two posts in a row, instead of fostering an enjoyable brotherly bible discussion, you falsely attack me for misrepresentation, and neither time did I do that. And this time you slam with some harsh insults as though the disagreement and lack of understanding between us is not difficult enough. Understanding is hardly founded between us, your attacks fail as I hope ignorance will to. And I hope and pray for sufficient grace between us. This is a bible discussion between two or more folks who don’t think the same on every issue, and that should be a good thing, a redemptive opportunity. Win win, not loser loser.

As to what I was doing instead of misrepresenting you, I was responding to your line of thinking while at the same time, I demonstrated the negative implications that I see even though your thinking on the implications may be completely different. I have a penitent for accuracy when responding to and representing others; I prefer to quote verbatim and even put little callout numbers for immediate and clear reference, like I have done in this thread several times (well at least once posted, and once not yet posted, but I do it alot, smile). I was not “merely” representing what I think you think, I was representing your view along with the dangerous implications that I see connected to that view. Bringing our views together where they clash is a method of brevity that I had hoped I handled well. I am sorry if I misled you into thinking otherwise.

So the first part of your post is mostly spent making sure I know this painful feeling I get deep inside when I consider your recent treatment of me.

I gave an analogy, but you have practically trash it every time you mention it. Even after I tried to correct you about it’s intended limitations, you not only don’t kindly and thankfully stand corrected (like you normally would) but you trashed it some more at the end of your post, twisting it in a way that I expressly did not allow it to be used. Here is what you said. Notice the consistent and careful directness when I actually represent you. Or, do you instead contend that Christ never actually paid our price, but instead only did it symbolically, like your rich man analogy. Do you state that Christ really never did die for our sins? Is that what you are saying? Here was one limiting remark I gave about my (trashy) analogy. As far as my analogy goes, you are criticizing it like it’s a formal letter of doctrine. I am not assuming anything other than it’s application to the God of the Bible and His teaching about Christ’s work of redemption, in relation to personal substitution. The issue is, Jesus becoming sin for us, was that an “accounting” and “substitutionary”, or was that a real change in Christ’s righteousness, like Jesus was truly filled with sin, hence, He was temporarily not sinless. So you have NOT been taking some of what I have already written to you very well, despite your kind words to the contrary. I am tiring of correcting you over my analogy. Please refrain from going there, but instead, deal with more concrete apologetic and direct expressions, which are plentiful.

As I said earlier, I am not objecting to any other change in Christ except that He changed in His righteousness, which is on account of two main phrases, that He became sin for us, and that God declared Him righteous. (Remember) It’s not, did Jesus change in some other way, it’s, did Jesus change in His righteousness when He became sin “for us”. So the entire last part of your post is pretty much irrelevant as it pertains to the continued misuse of my analogy and what I have been arguing. Christ humbled Himself, even unto death. I am open view pretty much like you are. I do not believe that Christ changed in His personal righteousness, taking on the sins of the world is figurative of what God would do for us by way of redemption. Jesus didn’t actually become sin filled, He remained sinless. Yet you apparently disagree, and I don’t understand why.

Continued.

[1Way]

Lion – 2of2 - As to your paragraph before and including the quote from Romans 8. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing on what events happened at the cross, other than if Christ actually and not symbolically became sin for us.

I contend that Christ’s sinlessness and righteous perfection is consistent throughout the bible and His life, including His work of redemption. You seem to contend that Jesus actually was not sinless, He actually became unrighteous even if only for a moment. And thus we have been disagreeing.

The way you have treated me in this thread continues to hurt me. If this is what it’s like to share over issues of brotherly disagreement about what the bible teaches, then I guess I should just feel lucky that I am not the personal target of your bitter offensiveness because of my sincere desire for biblical edification and fellowship, including correction.

Grace and peace and love. (right?)

I didn’t mean to upset you or knight or our unity in fellowship. I disagree with what Bob (and now you) teaches about Christ changing in His righteousness. And, although I obviously grant that he is too busy to respond to everyone, I am disappointed in Bob for often and consistently teaching his listeners that he wants us to contact him especially if we disagree with his bible teaching so that he might have the opportunity to humbly keep himself from error, while at the same time effectively quashing such efforts. And because of that I get personal contempt and grief from both you and Knight, even direct and harsh insults. It should not be so.

To show how careless you have been, you said. So before we go on I need to l know this from you.

Prior to Christ dieing on the cross, did God have experiential knowledge of the price of sin, death? In other words, had He Himself, experienced it? As though we disagree about anything else except whether or not Jesus actually became unrighteous by taking on our sin and then later being declared righteous. My focus has been on one point, which is contended over two main phrases, and that is

Chirst’s sinless righteousness,

and Him “becoming sin for us”, and Him afterward being “declared righteous”.

We have no contention over anything else. You did come right out and say (paraphrased), "Christ actually became unrighteous", which I could hardly believe you said that, but you did make that much clear, most else has been near but not on topic. Earlier I feared this problem of falling off topic so I posted this end of post reminder (from post 31 of 36). (Remember) It’s not, did Jesus change in some other way, it’s, did Jesus change in His righteousness when He became sin “for us”. So lets get to the issue of contention, and let our otherwise obvious agreements remain in the Godly confidence that our joy would normally afford, but can’t since our joyous fellowship has not been preferred.

I’ve probably already presented to you at least three times now why it is that I think that Jesus did not change in His righteousness when you say that He did. I’d actually like a direct response to them. I feel certain that I have given at least three arguments to that end, one of which is rather significant and I’ve focused on it the most. Yet I don’t understand, and am still waiting for your arguments for why you feel that Jesus “actually” became filled with sin instead of symbolically became sin for us (on our account).

[1Way]

Gotta go, for about a week or so :sigh: , unless I get lucky and can get online while being gone all week truck driving. I almost have converted my stationary PC into a mobile PC. :yesyes:

Part one is done and successful, chopping up my PC case, it's now about 5" shorter and a bit lighter. And mobile cell phone internet is up and running!

Next I have to find a way to mount my LCD monitor for road use.

Take care!

[Lion]

1Way-You said: So you have NOT been taking some of what I have already written to you very well, despite your kind words to the contrary. I am tiring of correcting you over my analogy. Please refrain from going there, but instead, deal with more concrete apologetic and direct expressions, which are plentiful.I will stop quoting your analogy when you finally see how flawed it is. I took great care in showing where it grossly failed, and that it’s failure is part of your problem with not being able to understand this issue. Go back and re-read what I said about it the first time and perhaps you will get it.

You have two annoying habits that get to me some times. One is where you jab little insults in and then act as if you have been perfectly polite and then can’t understand, and get all offended, when some one comes back at you.I said that sin is not just an action, it can also happen in the mind (without physical action), so you proceed to correct me by agreeing with me. I appreciate your explaining what you really meant, however, with your form of opposing correction, who needs mutual agreement.
Lion – 1of2 – You have degraded this discussion into something shameful. Two posts in a row, instead of fostering an enjoyable brotherly bible discussion, you falsely attack me for misrepresentation, and neither time did I do that.

If this is what it’s like to share over issues of brotherly disagreement about what the bible teaches, then I guess I should just feel lucky that I am not the personal target of your bitter offensiveness because of my sincere desire for biblical edification and fellowship, including correction.

Deeply offended? Well I happen to be deeply offended at the way you falsely accuse and misrepresent Bob and Connie at the beginning of this post. And other posts.

The second habit is what I alluded to before, where you hear something and get an idea of what you think the person meant, and if you can’t get an immediate retraction or explanation, then you think they are running or hiding from you because they are spouting false teachings, when in reality, it is often just a misunderstanding.

So, if you don’t want to get burned with insults, then learn to post without making any. Otherwise, let’s not worry about hurting each other’s feelings and just get on with the discussion.

[Lion]

I stated to you in the beginning of my posts as well as later on, that I believe that the one (and only) place we are in disagreement is in ”what change is”. I have no argument with the substitution of sin argument (obviously), but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a real and true change in Christ.

You claim that there was no change in Christ becoming a curse, sin, and dying, where as I have tried to show you that there was an absolute change, in that that He took on the sins of the world (something He had never done or experienced before). He was forsaken by the Father (something He had never experienced before and never will again) That He was separated from the Father (He died, something He had never experienced before and never will again).

Did Christ turn into rape? No, of course not! Did He suddenly become a rapist? No, of course not! But did He, for the first time ever, take those sins upon Himself? In other words, did He accept guilt for them on our behalf? YES! And that was a change. Just as it was a change when He bore the brunt of His actions, accepting the cost of our sin, and paying the price in full.

As to your supposed only question: As I said earlier, I am not objecting to any other change in Christ except that He changed in His righteousness, which is on account of two main phrases, that He became sin for us, and that God declared Him righteous.

That’s what we’ve been leading up to. And yes, there was a change in His righteousness. While He was righteous, before taking on our sin, He was, and had always been, in perfect union with the Father. Then, when Jesus said: Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”At this point, I believe He became a curse (for our sake,) taking the sins of the world upon Himself and becoming unrighteous. Does this mean that He became “a sin”? No. Does it mean that He became “a rapist?” No. It means that when God saw Him as unrighteous, loaded with the curse due the world, He allowed His full wrath to come down on Jesus, killing Him (separation).

Let me put it like this: At the beginning of this discussion I took great pains to show that sin is not a thing, but an action. This is very important because without really taking that concept (as well as three others) into consideration, it is difficult to see the practicality of the argument.

The other three concepts that are vital to this discussion are these: (1) That death is separation from God. (2) That the price of guilt is death (separation from God). And (3) That being unrighteous means having guilt.

Since sin is an action, and not a thing, once we have done it, it is gone. For instance, you don’t have a bunch of little black marbles rolling around in your heart labeled with the names of all your sins. No. The action of the sin is in the past and no longer exists. The fact that you did it exists, and the consequences, but not the sin itself, because it is nothing more than an action.

So when you make the statement that “sin can not be separated from the sinner” you have to be careful. Why? Because this is a cliché, and like most clichés it is trying to make an analogy. And analogies only go so far to show what something means. Taken too literally an analogy becomes a wrong statement.

What is meant in the phrase that sin cannot be separated from the sinner is that the actions we perform are a direct correlation to who we are. The sin itself does not stay with us, but rather the consequences. The consequence of sin is guilt. And guilt brings forth death (separation from God). Therefore the unbeliever bears the guilt of his sins (being unrighteous). And the punishment of that guilt is death.

When we became believers God says He put our sin as far away from us as the east is from the west. How does He do this? By having paid for our guilt, thereby negating the need for our death (making us righteous). He accomplished this by truly paying the price for our debt (guilt), by Christ dying on the cross, and being separated from the Trinity. He bore our guilt and in so doing became unrighteous (guilty).

This is where you have a problem with this idea, but think it through with the mind set of sin being an action instead of a thing. Christ didn’t die for our sin, but for our guilt. In other words, He didn’t die to take on our evil actions, but rather for the price of those evil actions. The price of our guilt is death (separation from God). Christ took our guilt on Himself, paid the price and redeemed us. But the cost of that redemption was change, He became a curse. He died, (was separated), paying our price. But Christ, being more than just a man (man and God), could not be defeated by death (separation from the Father) and was made righteous by the Spirit.

So in this sense the term unrighteous means having guilt. Christ did have our guilt because He took it from us. He then paid the price and was made righteous (no longer separated which is the price of unrighteousness) and was the first to truly rise from the dead, because He is the first to have died and then been reunited with the Father.

I agree with you that this is a difficult subject, but great for study.

[1Way]

Lion – One (accurate, not misunderstood) step at a time.

Thanks for taking the time to address the personal aspect of this discussion. I hope to respond to the bible discussion as time avails. But first things first. As to So, if you don’t want to get burned with insults, then learn to post without making any. Otherwise, let’s not worry about hurting each other’s feelings and just get on with the discussion. Apathy is not an option for me, and I hope you did not mean to promote such a thing as a valid consideration. How we treat one another is supposed to be of the utmost importance for the Christian. How we treat one another has eternal consequences. As to your primary suggestion, if you really mean that, then I should multiply offensive burning insults at you because you were just previously offensive to me. If you find fault in your brother (righteously so or not), make the same fault in yourself, and make it larger too.

I don’t believe you really want it to be either of those suggestions.

As for my suggestion, I care about how we treat one another (just as everyone should), and in our case, because I thought we were more than just distant theological acquaintances. I completely disagree about your late allegations of my behavior. I “would” consider what you have done as defensively creating unnecessary strife because of being offended by some imagined wrong that did not exist in the first place. However, since I care about our relationship and I want to be a blessing and not otherwise, I would like to

first understand why you think that I was wrongfully insulting
before I personally establish your guilt by my judgment against you.

After all, we are supposed to

confront first
prior to judgment against a brother

for at least one very good reason. Sometimes the error perceived may exist only in the eyes of the beholder and not in any other way. Also, it might be partially accurate and partially inaccurate, etc. I’m sure you’d agree that our personal judgments are subject to error, even things we think are simply observations often turn out to be some sort of mistake. And what is neat is, when we find out that we are somehow mistaken about a wrong that we think someone else did, that should be an excuse for joyful gladness. We don’t want to be like Jonah who was pridefully unhappy that things turned out so righteous and loving.

So now I’ve confronted you, and I’ve done so prior to harshly judging against you personally. I hope this helps you understand my offense at your treatment of me, which we can table for a latter time after we deal with your claims of my wrongdoing, even though I am ready for amends on this issue any time you are. (Me or you standing corrected) If you have questions or comments on this issue, I welcome your input.

So, walking back a couple of steps back to “initial confrontation”, forgetting the just mentioned offense I perceive in you. Your claims seem completely wrong to me. So, please explain what in particular was the offensive insulting error. Let us establish the truth of the matter so that at the very least, I could become able to be sorry for what I did, after all, only then would you and or others be able to accept my repentance as being suitable and appropriate.

I’d be happy to continue this privately or publicly, but if you think it wont be settled in short order, (it hardly ever is) we probably should continue this away from the forum.

[Lion]

I agree that this should be done privately. So I agree to discuss it in private e-mails or over the phone.

Also this will stop any distraction from the topic in question.

[Lion]

Ummmm…. Hello?

I meant to discuss the personal stuff in private. The discussion should continue unchecked.

[1Way]

Lion – Sure, I knew that. I’m an OTR truck driver, which means I have almost no free time as it is, and there may be times when I’m gone from TOL for extended periods. I’ll do what I can when I can, and feel I’ve done much already. Although I don’t feel you’ve given some of my points very good consideration, and to some you’ve given very bad consideration. (I admit that I barely considered your last topical post, I need to catch up when time permits.) I’m going to try to refocus again, and make some general and summary comments; I’ll get back to particulars some other time. And I hope we are not battling over semantics when in reality we effectively believe the same thing.

I am concerned over the issue of Christ’s own personal righteousness, which may be restated as God’s righteousness because Christ is God (3in1), and whether or not it ever actually changed into being unrighteous. It’s my view (and I think is also the overwhelming view of most Christians) that God never actually changed in His personal righteousness; God never became unrighteous.

A quick recap, Bob Enyart claimed that Jesus Christ Himself personally underwent change concerning two main things, taking on the sins of the world and then being declared the righteous. I could agree with that by defining the particular change in any number of ways that would not include His personal righteousness. But when I pressed for a more clear particular explanation here at TOL for what particular sort of change Bob was implying, you took up the argument and plainly said that He did become unrighteous, a claim that I believe is patently false. If you really disagree with God’s own personal unchanged holy righteousness, then for starters, I have to wonder what we should do with all the passages that establish quite clearly His unchanging holy righteousness.

(Please respond to this issue in two ways, clarify if you do believe that God via Jesus actually (not figuratively) became unrighteous, and secondly, if you believe that He actually became unrighteous, what do we do with all the teachings in the bible to the contrary?)

What about the event of personal sacrificial substitution itself? Are there any biblical or absolute moral grounds for a (general) rule that lovingly and sacrificially and rightly paying off someone else’s debt, somehow makes that person unrighteous in so doing? I claim there are none. In fact, since it was a righteous loving act, Christians accept Jesus’ atonement for our sins as being the ultimate in sacrificial and righteous love. I think the last attribute they would impute to God is unrighteousness, especially during His most wonderful and glorious act.

It doesn’t make the debt payer unrighteous by taking on their debt. Suffering and dieing for us entailed great changes in Christ, but Him changing in His righteousness simply is not such a change. That would make every teaching in the bible about God’s holy righteousness in direct contradiction to this teaching that He actually became unrighteous, even if only for a moment, and even if the depth or severity of this unrighteousness was the sum total of all unrighteousness that would ever exist (i.e. God actually became completely unrighteous by literally taking on “all” the sins of the world.)

(What do you say?)

Here’s an example of a biblical rule that I find to be consistent. But first some related bible references.

(A free will moral agent’s morality is self-determined and characterizes the person.)

Ge 4:7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire [is] for you, but you should rule over it."

Lu 6:45 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

(Being righteous and unrighteous are absolute issues, consider the case of murder, you can not murder someone and at the same time, and in the same relationship, be considered righteous.)

Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Mal 2:17 You have wearied the LORD with your words; Yet you say, "In what way have we wearied [Him]?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil [Is] good in the sight of the LORD, And He delights in them," Or, "Where [is] the God of justice?"

(General Bible rule) You cannot separate the sin from the sinner, nor the right from the righteous, or the wrong from the unrighteous. But you can forgive them if they are repentant, i.e. not “attribute” guilt, “account” them as righteous. A free will moral being is good or bad depending upon their own personal moral responses and deeds.

No one can force someone else to actually be good or evil, it’s always according to his or her own free will responding/acting in a righteous or unrighteous way. And just suppose that God could violate someone else’s will, then that will would not really be their own will, it would at least partially be God’s will also. So literally having unrighteousness in yourself would only happen if you personally acted in some unrighteous way (even if only in thought or intention). I also reference Pharaoh’s heart being hardened by God, and that it does not mean that God violated his free will in so doing, so even God can not actually exchange a person’s morality with another.

We should not profane or falsify God, and we should never attribute unrighteousness in Him. Anyone who holds to a direct contradiction is not worth much time arguing the case, and the last thing I’d expect from you or Bob Enyart is to espouse an outright biblical contradiction. So I await some explanation that would straighten out my biblical misunderstandings, or how I am mistaken in presuming that both changing and not changing in God’s righteousness is a direct contradiction, or whatever other mistakes I have made. I’m reminded of what I understand we both agree in, that you can NOT separate the sin from the sinner. It’s not, you may not separate the sin from the sinner, it’s you can not. That being the case, any notion of God taking our sins (literally transferring) upon Himself is not literal, but figurative of something else, like Him substituting Himself for our sakes. Also consider the following.

A new particular point.

Also, as some friends helped me understand, they deserve the credit, not myself. This idea of Jesus becoming “sin” may well derive it’s “intended” meaning from a Hebrew use, where one of the words for “sin” also can mean “sin offering”. That can explain why the scriptures stated the seemingly contradictory statement that He who knew no sin, became sin. But, I feel certain enough about Christ’s holy righteousness and Him not being unrighteous. Also, if the idea that “sin” means “sin offering” is correct, then I would have to wonder if you would still want to assert that Jesus became unrighteous since there may not be any other such bold reference to persuade someone into that position.

[1Way]

Lion – I forgot some references that seems especially on topic. Just more food for thought. Ro 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. = The moral action being considered.

= the result of this moral action.

During the same event, Christ’s work of redemption at the cross, God was not both unrighteous while He was demonstrating His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier.

And what if we consider the entire act of Christ’s sacrificial death? Joh 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. Godly sacrificial love is a good thing, it is not unrighteousness.

And also. Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

2Ch 19:7 "Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do [it], for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes."

3Jo 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God. God is good, He is not unrighteous, and He is trustworthy in His righteous character, He is always righteous.

That's all for now...

[1Way]

The bible repeatedly accounts what Christ did on the cross as being a righteous good and loving deed. I am gathering these on the fly, I feel quite certain that many more could be found, but I’m sure these passages are fully in keeping with what the bible teaches about Christ and His righteousness. 1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

(Not utterly filled with sin and unrighteousness, just the opposite)

Ro 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense [judgment] came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act [the free gift came] to all men, resulting in justification of life.

(Christ’s act on the cross was righteous, it was the opposite of unrighteous which was what the first Adam represented, this is the entire teaching of the bible, that a righteous God would provide the means to justify the sins of the world, the righteous would fix the unrighteous to make a way for salvation.)

Joh 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

(Agape Love is the greatest and most godly attribute. Of course, godly love can never be unrighteous, and so here we see an understatement about the righteous deed done on the cross, because it was the epitome of true love.)

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all [points] tempted as [we are, yet] without sin.

(Christ’s sinless perfection, was tempted in all ways man is tempted, yet without sin. Man could certainly be “tempted” to sacrificially take on someone else’s unrighteousness, but then again, this teaching says that concerning every temptation, Christ remained without sin.) God became sin for us. God took on the sin of the world. These are relational ideas; they represent a replacement of Christ “for us”, it is substitution. Concerning justice, Christ took the world’s sin upon Himself, so that He could redeem us. This idea of substitution is a bible wide concept and is what happened when Christ took on the sins of the world.

My main points are these.

- Morality is absolutely attached to the moral agent.
You can not separate the sin from the sinner (morality is eternally connected to the moral agent), thus the ideas of “transference” and “sin” (= Jesus became sin for us) is a statement of account, a reckoning, an imputation, a substitution, even the context declares this truth that it is by way of personal substitution, became sin “for us”, not “actually took our sin from us”.

- God is steadfastly righteous.
God is without unrighteousness. This is especially true at the crucifixion where the most loving and Godly event ever happened. To suggest that this righteous deed involved God actually becoming unrighteous is perfectly contrary to the entire bible’s message.

I conclude that these two unique ideas (became sin for us, and afterward declared righteous) need to be understood in such a way as to not violate the rest of the bible. As to the second phrase, I suppose it relates to the following. Ro 3:26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Might?!? What could be uncertain about God in this issue of becoming our justifier? Well, I suppose that the temptations for Jesus to fail in some way were real. Thus it was possible for Christ to sin, otherwise He could not really be tempted to sin like we are if He could never possibly sin. So, Christ possibly could have not completed His work of redemption at the cross, thus after this issue had been taken care of for all eternity, only then could He be officially recognized for this glorious deed. Even I could remain sinless for my entire life “if I could not possibly sin”. So this proclamation of Christ’s righteousness, is fully in accordance to the completion of His work of redemption, which evidently held perhaps the largest temptation to fail (who wants pain and suffering and death and terrible intense torment?), yet the most difficult sacrifice had been completed, and only after that point could Christ truly be said to be “just and the justifier”, and to have lived a life and faced every temptation common to man, yet He remained “without” sin/unrighteousness. Proclaimed righteous, sure, He just completed His entire life without sinning, even during the most difficult sacrifice and perhaps temptation ever. Not that He was previously and briefly unrighteous, but that He had never before attained absolute certain completion of His work of redemption, and without failing too!

I see no reason to assume that Christ actually changed in His righteousness. God is faithful exactly because He doesn’t change in His righteous character. And becoming “sin for us” is a statement of personal substitution, not otherwise.

I hope this has been helpful. To attribute unrighteousness in God is a most dangerous and I dare say blasphemous notion.

[1Way]

Knight - Lion - billwald - philosophizer - and all interested parties –

I was hoping for a bit more interest and interaction than this, almost three months and no responses. Perhaps the personal offense sidetrack dampened the topic’s interest.

Bilwald still owes me a response to my last post to him. Knight and myself have apparently just sort of dropped our differences without discussing it, but I think we understand and even respect each other pretty well. Lion owes me some private and public responses, although I’m not sure either of us is looking forward to dealing with the private part. ... What do you do when you just can’t see eye to eye with your brother and your relationship is as broken as it appeared to be? Maybe the trust and respect built up between us was previously artificially too high (in my eyes), and so the not much depth was broken between us, I just don’t know. I just know that nothing has happened since he agreed to continue privately.

Your thoughts and prayers are encouraged and welcome. I hope Lion is well and is still prayerfully considering what happened. And my previous two posts remain unanswered above. (?)

Here’s to some long awaited objective bible study and discussion! Although I should say, I usually get a pretty good feel for the other person’s argument/position “prior” to engaging in debate, but I still have a somewhat of a hard time understanding their “Jesus/God actually became unrighteous” view. I hear the claims, but I don’t see much bible apologetic defending the view, especially in light of my biblical defense against their view. I hope to see more dealing with the passages that teach that what Jesus did on the cross and during His entire life was loving and righteous, and so until then, I remain somewhat confused as to why they claim that Jesus actually became unrighteous, not just figuratively via personal substitution.

Back to the topic at hand, here is my last post to billwald. Billwald – As to Could be correct but at least to me it makes God appear infantile. The substitution theory boils down to the concept that pain has a positive qualitative and quantitative value that offsets the negative qualitative and quantitative value of sin. Infantile? Substitution is a bible wide theme. Pain? Pain? . . . Pain. Pain?

Substitution is not about pain. Look at what the Bible teaches on the topic. That man can not save himself, he needs God’s rescue and God seems right in thinking that only a perfect (sinless) sacrifice could possibly redeem the world for all eternity. Not pain, but biblical righteousness and forgiveness. Forgiveness never says, the offender is not guilty of offending, it’s, the offender is guilty BUT he repented AND I forgive the offense they did against me.

And as far as forgiveness in salvation goes, God imputes Christ’s righteousness into our account. Imputation is not something that is separates the sin from the sinner, it’s outright substitution, God esteems/declares our account as righteous as though our righteousness is really Christ’s perfection! Yet even though Christ lives in us, “our” own righteousness is not perfect, it’s is merely accounted that way by God despite all our sin and unrighteousness. That’s love and forgiveness and biblical accounting and substitution, and lastly, the fact that you can never separate the sin from the sinner, or the good from the righteous.

Bob Enyart was the one who is saying that Jesus changed when He became sin for us, and when He later was declared righteous. Unless someone finally comes forward and explains what other change in God we are talking about, this teaching is saying that God was at least temporarily less than righteous because of sin. I am saying that is not possible, the sacrifice at the cross was without blemish, the price tag for the gift of salvation to the world was not paid by a person filled sin, the infinite price was paid by a perfect person without sin.

(As to) “He became sin for us”, must not mean what Bob is teaching, which would be focusing only on the first part and ignoring the second half, it must be some statement of substitution. And look, consider the phrase, it is substitution. God did something:
- for us,
- instead of us,
- on our behalf.
Substitution, or “on our behalf”, or “on our account”, is the idea plainly presented, and in other parts of scripture, being “accounted for righteousness” is God’s word concerning our salvation and forgiveness.

Surely you can at least acknowledge these precepts as Biblical.(?) Looking forward to your response.

[Aimiel]

I, personally, believe that the only reason Jesus was able to die, since the wages of sin is death, was the fact that He allowed Himself to be hung upon a tree (see Deuteronomy 21:23, below). If He were not hanged, His sinless life would not have allowed death to have any hold upon Him, having never sinned. This is, in itself, the most righteous act ever performed by flesh, and since God looks upon the heart and knows the thoughts and intents, Jesus' righteousness never comes into question, even when He allowed His flesh to take on the curse of sin, never having done anything deserving of such judgement. It is this travesty of God's justice, that is to say, the death of pure innocence, that allows us (sinners) to trade our sinfulness for His Righteousness, by faith in His Finished Work upon the cross.

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

[1Way]

Thanks Aimiel – I think that even God becoming a curse for us is not like the curse put on man, which was the result of sin (at the tree). He was as you mentioned without the problem of inherited death because of sin, He could have lived forever just as Adam and Eve would have prior to the fall and subsequent curse of death. Now, lets see, how do we understand the curse for being hung on a tree. :crackup: how about it’s because you were hung on a tree, :D there is no moral or ethical evil for being hung on a tree as apposed to hung on metal or whatever. Sin is a curse for man, and God would take away the sins of the world by hanging on a tree, so it is poetic justice and shows the relationship all the way back to the beginning of it all, yet that was taken care of by way of personal substitution, unrighteousness did not “somehow” become detached and reattached.

Suppose you had purposefully did something as painful as purposefully giving your own son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, would you want to look at it right as it was happening? Wouldn’t the pain and heartache rip at you terribly? Wouldn’t the loss and agony and pain just tear you up inside and make you wish it did not have to happen? Of course that would be the case, so it is not surprising that we find Jesus and God at a point of separation, which is possibly more on account of God the Father’s heart, than it was for Jesus. I imagine that two thoughts went through God’s mind as Jesus was dying on the cross. First, His death and pain would only be temporary, and second, the love for the lost that they might be saved was worth the sacrifices and pain. God really cares for others, even though all the saints together not nearly as worthy as His one son is, God did it “for us”.

Great, so far I have philosophizer and Aimiel in my favor and Lion and billwald against. But then again, billwald and Lion has not responded to my last posts, so their current position is less clear.